Smti. Munawar Begum v. Shri. Asif Ali And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/61/2024 Smti. Munawar Begum Vs.

Shri Asif Ali and Others Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Advocate Ms. A. Keerthi ... for the petitioner Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the respondents February 10, 2025 [AKB] Item no. 9 1.

This instant petition has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India throwing a challenge to the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sri Vijaya Puram in Title Suit No. 64 of 2003 (Smti. Munawar Begum - vs - Shri Asif Ali and others). By the said order, the learned Court directed the Record Keeper (In-charge) of the District Record Room to ensure that the original case record of Title Suit No. 64 of 2003 is placed before the Court on the next date. The record indicates that the next date was fixed for 11.11.2024, and I am told that on this date as well, a similar direction was issued to the concerned Record Keeper.

2.

Ms. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the records of the case were somehow misplaced from the Record Room, and this fact was duly brought to the notice of the Court. However, for the past three years, similar orders have been repeatedly passed without resolving the issue. She prays for an appropriate direction to be issued to the learned Court below to reconstruct the case record.

3.

Mr. Arul Prasanth, learned advocate, representing the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, submits that there is no reflection in the order of the learned Court Below that the case record was misplaced.

4.

Before delving into the contentious issues raised in this petition, it would be appropriate to outline the essential facts that led to the filing of this petition. 5.

The plaintiff/petitioner filed a partition suit, being Title Suit No. 64 of 2003, and upon the conclusion of the trial, a preliminary decree was passed declaring the shares of the co-sharers in the suit property. However, the said preliminary decree was challenged in an appeal, Title Appeal No. 26 of 2010, which was disposed of by an order dated 31.10.2014. The record reveals that challenging the judgment and order passed in the first appeal, a second appeal, SAT/2/2015, was also filed before this Court, which was disposed of by modifying the preliminary decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

6.

Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the appointment of a partition commissioner. However, the case record of Title Suit No. 64 of 2003 could not be located. Despite this issue being brought to the attention of the learned Court below, the Court repeatedly issued directions to the Record Keeper (In-charge) of the District Record Room to produce the case record before the Court.

7.

A judicial institution is committed to delivering objective and swift justice to the people. It is unfortunate that the case record of a partition suit, in which a preliminary decree has been passed with several follow-up actions yet to be completed, has been misplaced from the learned Court below. As a result, for the past three years, no effective progress has been made in the suit, and consequently, a logical conclusion has not been reached. 8.

However, it has been brought to my notice that the next date for the suit has been fixed for 25.02.2025. Taking note of this, the revision is disposed of with a direction to the learned Court below that if the case record is not produced before the Court on that date, i.e., 25.02.2025, the learned Court below shall take all necessary steps to reconstruct the case record in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Civil Rules and Orders of the Calcutta High Court. It is also expected that the parties shall assist the Court in the reconstruction process by providing any documents, such as pleadings, certified copies of evidence, orders, etc., that are in their possession. Since a considerable amount of time has already passed since the passing of the preliminary decree, the learned Court below shall make a sincere effort to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. 9.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below as well as to the learned District Judge at Port Blair for information and compliance. 10.

With this observation and order, this petition is disposed of. ( Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. )